• No results found

STRUGGLE OVER WHO WE ARE - A DISCURSIVE PERSPECTIVE ON ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY CHANGE

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "STRUGGLE OVER WHO WE ARE - A DISCURSIVE PERSPECTIVE ON ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY CHANGE"

Copied!
218
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Doctoral Dissertation Series 2007/4 Espoo 2007

STRUGGLE OVER “WHO WE ARE” - A DISCURSIVE

PERSPECTIVE ON ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY CHANGE

Virpi Hämäläinen

Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology to be presented with due permission of the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management for public examination and debate in Audi-torium TU2 at Helsinki University of Technology (Espoo, Finland) on the 19th of October, 2007, at 12 noon.

(2)

Helsinki University of Technology

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Laboratory of Work Psychology and Leadership P.O. Box 5500 FIN-02015 TKK, FINLAND Phone: +358 9 451 2846 Fax: +358 9 451 3665 Internet: http://www.tuta.hut.fi/ © Virpi Hämäläinen ISBN 978-951-22-8905-9 (print) ISBN 978-951-22-8906-6 (online) ISSN 1459-8027 (print) ISSN 1795-1550 (online) http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2007/isbn9789512289066/

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, re-cording, or otherwise, without permission in writing from the publisher.

(3)

The study focuses on organizational identity change in the acquisition context from a discur-sive perspective. Organizational identity answers the question of “who we are” as an organi-zation. Traditionally, organizational identity has been approached as a set of features that or-ganizational members consider central, distinctive, and enduring about their organization. Re-cent research, however, has challenged the Re-centralness and enduringness of organizational identity, and there has been a call for more dynamic and fragmented views of organizational identity. Despite this call, most of the existing studies give an overly simplistic view of organ-izational identity and its change viewing stability as a desired state of organizations and ignor-ing the issues of power involved in identity construction processes.

The objective of this study is to understand organizational identity change as a discursive phenomenon and to provide a description of it. In this study, language is seen as the very arena where identity construction occurs. Organizational identity is constructed in the interac-tion between multiple actors, and this process is inherently linked to issues of power, since different articulations of “who we are” serve different interests and are related to certain ideo-logical underpinnings. The study explores the construction of organizational identity in a local Finnish telecommunications company during its takeover by a national telecommunications group. The empirical data consist of one-on-one and group interviews, intranet discussions, company’s internal communication material, and media articles produced before, during, and after the acquisition over a 5-year time-span.

The study suggests that social actors construct, destruct, transform, and sustain different iden-tity articulations in their use of various discursive strategies. Furthermore, social actors are capable of using different discourse types to produce desired identity articulations in suitable contexts. Three different discourse types used by social actors in their argumentation were identified in data. These discourse types were economic-rationalistic discourse, power dis-course, and cultural discourse. In addition to identifying different discourse types and discur-sive strategies, the study also examined their use in the acquisition context, thus examining the situational variation of argumentation. As a result of this analysis, the study suggests that the identity of the social actor, the historical time, and the social arena for language use are related to the choice of discourse types and to which discursive strategies are used in the ar-gumentation. Depending on which discourse types and discursive strategies are employed and to what purpose, organizational identity is constructed in different ways in language use. A discursive view described in this study increases understanding of organizational identity change as a much more dynamic, fragmented, political, and complex phenomenon than earlier research has suggested. It highlights the role of time and place in organizational identity con-struction, thus describing identities as situated constructs, which vary depending on where, when, and by whom they are articulated. By describing identity construction as a phenome-non that happens in the interaction between multiple social actors, the study also suggests that identity change processes are more difficult to manage from the “top” of the organization than earlier research has suggested.

Keywords: Organizational identity, organizational discourse, change, critical discourse analy-sis

(4)

Tutkimus käsittelee organisaatioidentiteetin muutosta yritysostokontekstissa diskursiivisesta näkökulmasta. Organisaatioidentiteetti vastaa kysymykseen ”keitä me olemme” organisaatio-na. Perinteisesti organisaatioidentiteettiä on lähestytty joukkona organisaatioon liitettäviä ominaisuuksia, joita organisaation jäsenet pitävät keskeisinä, muista erottuvina ja pysyvinä. Uusin tutkimus on kuitenkin haastanut tämän näkemyksen ja peräänkuuluttanut dynaamisem-paa ja hajanaisemdynaamisem-paa näkemystä organisaatioidentiteetistä. Tästä huolimatta suurin osa ole-massa olevasta tutkimuksesta antaa liian yksinkertaistetun kuvan organisaatioidentiteetistä ja sen muutoksesta pitäen pysyvyyttä organisaation tavoiteltavana olotilana ja kiinnittäen varsin vähän huomiota siihen, miten valta liittyy organisaatioidentiteetin rakentumiseen.

Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena on ymmärtää ja kuvata organisaatioidentiteetin muutos dis-kursiivisena ilmiönä. Tässä tutkimuksessa kieli nähdään areenana, jossa identiteetin rakenta-minen tapahtuu. Organisaatioidentiteetti rakentuu vuorovaikutuksessa useiden eri toimijoiden kesken. Valta liittyy keskeisellä tavalla tähän prosessiin, sillä erilaiset ilmaukset siitä ”keitä me olemme” palvelevat erilaisia intressejä ja ovat sidoksissa tiettyihin ideologisiin olettamuk-siin. Tutkimus tarkastelee organisaatioidentiteetin rakentumista suomalaisessa paikallisessa tietoliikennealan yrityksessä aikana, jolloin valtakunnallinen tietoliikennealan yritys osti sen. Tutkimuksen aineisto koostuu yksilö- ja ryhmähaastatteluista, intranet-keskusteluista, yrityk-sen sisäisestä viestintämateriaalista sekä media-artikkeleista. Aineisto on tuotettu viiden vuo-den aikana ennen ja jälkeen yritysoston.

Tutkimuksen tuloksena voidaan todeta, että sosiaaliset toimijat rakentavat, hajottavat, muutta-vat ja ylläpitävät ilmauksia identiteetistä käyttämällä erilaisia diskursiivisia strategioita pu-heessaan. Lisäksi toimijat käyttävät erilaisia diskurssityyppejä resursseinaan, jotka mahdollis-tavat haluttujen identiteetti-ilmausten tuottamisen eri konteksteihin sopiviksi. Aineistolähtöi-sessä analyysissä tunnistettiin kolme erilaista diskurssityyppiä: taloudellis-rationaalinen dis-kurssi, valtadiskurssi ja kulttuuridiskurssi. Diskursiivisten strategioiden ja diskurssityyppien tunnistamisen lisäksi tutkimuksessa tarkasteltiin niiden käyttöä yritysostokontekstissa, mikä mahdollisti puheen tilannesidonnaisen vaihtelun tarkastelun. Analyysin tuloksena voidaan todeta, että sosiaalisen toimijan identiteetti sekä puheen tuottamisen ajankohta ja sosiaalinen areena ovat sidoksissa siihen, millaisia diskurssityyppejä ja diskursiivisia strategioita käyte-tään argumentoinnissa. Riippuen siitä, millaisia diskurssityyppejä ja diskursiivisia strategioita käytetään ja mihin tarkoitukseen, organisaatioidentiteetti saa erilaisia ilmiasuja kielen käytös-sä.

Tutkimuksessa kuvattu diskursiivinen näkökulma lisää ymmärrystä organisaatioidentiteetin muutoksesta huomattavasti dynaamisempana, hajanaisempana, poliittisempana ja monimut-kaisempana ilmiönä kuin aikaisempi tutkimus on osoittanut. Tutkimus painottaa puheen tuot-tamisen ajan ja paikan roolia identiteetin rakennustyössä ja kuvaa identiteetit tilannesidonnai-sina konstruktioina, jotka vaihtelevat riippuen siitä, missä, milloin ja kuka ne kulloinkin tuot-taa. Kuvaamalla identiteetin rakentumisen ilmiönä, joka tapahtuu vuorovaikutuksessa useiden eri toimijoiden kesken, tutkimus myös osoittaa, että identiteetin muutosprosesseja on huomat-tavasti vaikeampi johtaa ”ylhäältä” käsin organisaatiossa kuin aikaisempi tutkimus on ehdot-tanut.

Avainsanat: Organisaatioidentiteetti, organisaatiodiskurssi, muutos, kriittinen diskurssiana-lyysi

(5)

This dissertation is the result of the journey, which started when I entered the STRADA re-search program at Helsinki University of Technology in 2001. Now, when years of hard work are behind me, I want to thank several people, who have shared that journey with me and to whom I am grateful and indebted.

I would like to express my deep gratitude to my instructor, Professor John Sillince, whose guidance played a significant role in writing and completing this dissertation. His thought provoking and constructive feedback helped me to develop my ideas and inspired me to con-tinue my work when I felt being stuck with my thoughts. My supervisor, Professor Veikko Teikari, has provided me with support and freedom in my dissertation project. I am thankful for his encouragement throughout the project.

I owe a great deal to my colleagues and ex-colleagues in the STRADA research program. First of all, I want to thank Dr. Petri Aaltonen, Dr. Heini Ikävalko, and Dr. Saku Mantere for taking me in the STRADA team and for providing me with an access to a case and data in the beginning of the project. I also appreciate their insights that they gave to the manuscript dur-ing the writdur-ing process. I give my warmest thanks especially to Saku for helpdur-ing me to im-prove the manuscript in the final phases of my research. I am also indebted to Kimmo Suomi-nen and Jouni SippoSuomi-nen in the STRADA program for reading and giving feedback to the ear-lier versions of the manuscript.

In addition to my fellow team members, I am thankful to Dr. Miia Martinsuo and Jouni Vir-taharju for their advice and comments. Furthermore, my preliminary examiners, Professor Eero Vaara and Professor Janne Tienari, significantly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

I would like to thank the Finnish Work Environment Fund, the Finnish National Productivity Programme, the Finnish Workplace Development Programme, and the Finnish Doctoral Pro-gram in Industrial Engineering and Management for financing my study. Also, I am grateful to the interviewees and other members of the case organization for sharing their time and thoughts with me. David Miller did a great job in correcting my English and helping me to express my thoughts in a foreign language.

I am deeply thankful to my parents, who have encouraged me and my sister Minna to face challenges in life and let us to realize our dreams. Also, I would like to thank my friends for their support and presence throughout the dissertation project. Finally, I am the most grateful to my dearest ones, Mikko and Nuutti. They have reminded me of what makes the life the most meaningful.

Helsinki, September 2007 Virpi Hämäläinen

(6)

1 Introduction...1

2 Literature review ...5

2.1 Identity in and of organizations ...5

2.1.1 What is organizational identity?...7

2.1.2 Relations between organizational identity, culture and image ...9

2.2 Multiplicity and dynamics of organizational identity ...14

2.2.1 Identity multiplicity...14

2.2.2 Identity dynamics ...16

2.3 Power, control and ideology in identity formation ...22

2.4 Discursive perspective on organizational identity change ...27

2.4.1 Discourse, organization and identity ...28

2.4.2 Interplay of agency and structure in identity construction ...31

2.4.3 Identity change as a discursive struggle ...43

2.5 Summary...47

3 Research process ...48

3.1 Social constructionist study ...48

3.1.1 Critical discourse analysis as a research methodology...48

3.1.2 Researcher reflexivity...51

3.2 Data production...54

3.2.1 Media texts ...57

3.2.2 Internal communication material...58

3.2.3 Intranet discussions ...58

3.2.4 One-on-one interviews ...60

3.2.5 Group interviews ...62

3.3 Data analysis ...65

3.3.1 First steps in the analysis process...68

(7)

3.3.4 Contextual analysis of identity construction ...71

4 Results ...74

4.1 Setting the scene: introducing AffCo...74

4.2 Discourse types as resources in organizational identity construction ...77

4.2.1 Economic-rationalistic discourse ...78

4.2.2 Power discourse...81

4.2.3 Cultural discourse...84

4.2.4 Summary ...87

4.3 Discursive strategies as tools in organizational identity construction...88

4.3.1 Discursive strategies of change ...88

4.3.2 Discursive strategies of continuity ...93

4.3.3 Summary ...96

4.4 Organizational identity construction in the acquisition context...101

4.4.1 Pre-acquisition period...103 4.4.2 Acquisition period ...120 4.4.3 Post-acquisition period ...134 4.4.4 Summary ...152 5 Discussion ...156 5.1 Contribution ...159

5.1.1 A discursive perspective on organizational identity change...159

5.1.2 Agency and structure in organizational identity construction ...161

5.1.3 Context in organizational identity construction...162

5.2 Practical implications...165

5.3 Evaluation of the study ...166

5.4 Suggestions for further research ...170

Literature...172

(8)
(9)

1

I

NTRODUCTION

A few years ago, I had an opportunity to work as an external researcher in two organi-zations going through significant changes. One of them was a local Finnish telecom-munications company, which had been swallowed by a national telecomtelecom-munications group at the time of the research project, and the other, a public organization, had pre-pared for a merger that did not happen. I noticed that people in these two organiza-tions tried continuously to make sense of their organization’s existence in those turbu-lent times and reflected the question of “who we are” as an organization in relation to their merger partner or parent organization, and their own past. Whether they envi-sioned what the future with their new partner would look like or made sense of what was happening in their organizations at the time, their arguments were often rooted in notions of the very essence of their organization. Some time later, when I started work on my dissertation, I found a counterpart for this phenomenon in the literature; what the organizational members tried to make sense of and what they simultaneously con-structed in their talk was conceptualized in the literature as organizational identity.

The notion of identity has become more and more salient for organizations during the past few decades. Because of increased complexity in organizations and their envi-ronment, expansion of the mass media, and cultural and economic changes in society (Alvesson 1990), non-substansive aspects have become as, if not more, important cornerstones for the success of organizations than substansive aspects like products and equipment. An understanding of “who we are” and “where we are going” as an organization is crucial for the ontological security of organizational members, but it is also needed in dealing with the competition (Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999). It is important for organizations to be distinctive enough from their competitors, attractive in the eyes of current and potential employees, and legitimate actors in society. Hence, the quest for identity is today not only a matter for individuals, but also for organizations.

Organizational identity has typically been defined as a set of features that an organiza-tion’s members consider to be relatively enduring about their organization (Albert & Whetten 1985). However, recent research has challenged the notion of enduringness in identity. The key question has been whether identity can be enduring if strategic

(10)

changes are to occur (Gioia & Thomas 1996), and if organizations need to interact with multiple audiences and multiple expectations in order to survive (Gioia et al. 2000a). Many organizational transformations today touch the very fundamental values and characteristics of the organization. For example, public sector organizations are modernized or privatized into business-like organizations, and regional or national companies are merged into multinational corporations. Also, organizations are forced to renew themselves more rapidly than before in order to succeed in an environment, where competition is based increasingly on their image and reputation.

What has been noted in various studies examining identity changes is that language

plays a central role in these transformations (see e.g. Fiol 2002). In most of these stud-ies, language has been seen as a tool for managers to change identity in an intended direction, for example, through creating a gap between the current and ideal identity (Reger et al. 1994). This view approaches identity as an entity that can be easily ma-nipulated and, furthermore, regards consensus and stability in identity as desired out-comes of managerial change efforts. However, it has been noted that organizational identity work is neither a managerial endeavour alone (Brown & Humphreys 2006), nor an organization’s internal process (Gioia et al. 2000a; Coupland & Brown 2004). Furthermore, those change models, which strive for stability in identity, have been criticized for being too static to increase our understanding of the dynamic nature of identity change processes (see e.g. Ashforth 1998).

In this study, I approach language not as a managerial tool for changing identity, but as the very arena, where identity construction occurs. Organizational identity is con-structed in the interaction between multiple actors, both ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ of the organization. This process is inherently linked to issues of power, since different articulations of “who we are” as an organization serve different interests and are re-lated to certain ideological underpinnings. Moreover, the change in identity, as well as its enduringness, is regarded in this study as a social construction constituted in lan-guage use, and not as something external to our linguistic understanding. The generic motivation that has guided this research process can be summed up in the following question: how can we approach and understand organizational identity and its change as social constructions, constituted in the processes of interaction? With

(11)

re-gard to this motivation, the objective of this study is to understand organizational identity change as a discursive phenomenon and to provide a description of it.

The study explores the construction of organizational identity in a local Finnish tele-communications company during its takeover by a national teletele-communications group. In prior research, mergers and acquisitions have been seen as particularly fruit-ful contexts for examining organization identity change processes (see e.g. Hogg & Terry 2000). An organization’s identity is most likely to be regarded as salient and explicitly discussed during major transformations, for example, in a situation, when an organization’s status is changing (Ashforth & Mael 1996). The data have been pro-duced before, during, and after the acquisition over a 5-year time-span. The empirical data consist of one-on-one and group interviews, intranet discussions, company’s in-ternal communication material, and media articles.

The research question for the study is the following: how is organizational identity constructed in the discursive processes of social actors? The research question will be further elaborated in chapter two as an outcome of the literature review.

The thesis is organized as follows after this introductory chapter. In chapter two, I will discuss the theoretical framework of the study. Firstly, the concept of organiza-tional identity and its related concepts are defined. Secondly, I will continue with an overview on the existing literature of organizational identity change and identity mul-tiplicity in organizations. Thirdly, I will examine how identity is related to power, control, and ideology in organizations. Fourthly, I will suggest a discursive perspec-tive to study organizational identity in general and organizational identity change in particular and present a framework for empirical analysis based on the literature re-view. In the end of the chapter, the theoretical framework of the study is concluded.

In chapter three, I will describe the research process including the research method-ology, data production, and data analysis. In chapter four, the empirical results of the study are discussed. Firstly, I will introduce the case company, which provides the scene for the analysis. Secondly, I will present the discourse types identified in the data that are used as linguistic resources in the identity construction. Thirdly, discur-sive strategies used in constructing organizational identities are presented. Fourthly, the use of discourse types and discursive strategies is examined in the acquisition

(12)

con-text. Different contextual elements that are related to language use by social actors are outlined.

In chapter five, the empirical findings of the study are firstly summarized. Secondly, the theoretical contributions and practical implications of the study are outlined. Thirdly, the study is evaluated on the basis of criteria suitable for discourse analytical research. Suggestions for further research conclude the chapter.

(13)

2

L

ITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, I will examine the literature on organizational identity in general and organizational identity multiplicity and change in particular and suggest a discursive approach to explore organizational identity and its change.

2.1

I

DENTITY IN AND OF ORGANIZATIONS

Identity became an important concept in organizational practice and theory in the early 1980s along the cultural and social changes in modern society (Alvesson 1990). Because of the increased complexity and turbulence, the growing importance of the service sector in the economy, and the rapid expansion of the mass media (ibid.), sym-bolic capital has become all the more valuable for organizations in dealing with the competition (Fiol 2001) and in sustaining legitimacy in the eyes of their various stakeholders. The emphasis in management and the functioning of organizations has shifted from substantive issues to dealing with various forms of images (Alvesson 1990), the management of which is a crucial skill for organizations, not only from the point of view of external relations, but also with regard to personnel.

During the past twenty years, researchers have explored various aspects of identity in and of organizations. By drawing on the categorization of Gioia, Schultz, and Corley (2000b), these studies can be broadly divided into three different approaches. Firstly, those studies that are concerned with people’s identification with organizations look at the processes through which people gain a sense of belonging to the organization. These studies have explored, for example, the importance of organizational image in identification (Dutton et al. 1994), the role of language in managing an individual’s identification with the transforming organizational identity (Fiol 2002), and identifica-tion with the organizaidentifica-tion in demographically diverse work settings (Brickson 2000). These studies regard individual and organizational identity as reciprocal and inter-linked, which has various benefits for the organization. For example, when an indi-vidual’s self-esteem is coupled with the identity of his or her organization, he or she is more willing to act in favour of the organization (Pratt 1998), especially in a situation, which threatens organization’s identity (Elsbach & Kramer 1996).

Secondly, the studies that are concerned with the identity of people within organiza-tions, or social identity (Ashforth & Mael 1989), examine the beliefs about “who we

(14)

are” as defined by our membership in the organization. These studies look at the iden-tity of different groups within an organization that are based on differences in demo-graphic categories such as gender, age, ethnicity, level of education, or level of tenure within the organization, professional backgrounds such as formalized training or ex-pertise, or shared interests such as mutual goals, concerns, or agendas (Pratt & Fore-man 2000). Researchers have explored, for example, the construction of newspaper workers’ social identity (Kärreman & Alvesson 2001), and the construction of posi-tive identity in those occupations that are seen as degrading, disgusting, or otherwise ‘dirty work’ in a society (Ashforth & Kreiner 1999).

Thirdly, those researchers, who examine the identity of organizations, or organiza-tional identity, are interested in the conceptualizations that organizaorganiza-tional members have about “who we are” as an organization. The focus is, then, on those characteris-tics that refer to the organization as a whole. Researchers have explored, for example, the relationship between organizational identity and image (Gioia et al. 2000a), the dynamics between organizational identity and organizational culture (Hatch & Schultz 2002), and the role of organizational identity in strategic change (Gioia & Thomas 1996), or in a lack of change (Reger et al. 1994). I position this study within this third perspective to identity-related organization studies, since my focus is on organiza-tional identities and their construction.

It is important to note that although these different aspects of organization-related identity are presented here separately for analytical purposes, they are partly overlap-ping, and a single study may take several of these views. Indeed, some researchers regard organizational identity as inherently interlinked with individual and social identity in organizations (e.g. Dutton & Dukerich 1991; Scott & Lane 2000a; Hum-phreys & Brown 2002) and argue that such categorizations are too simplistic or even trivial. However, I think the division between them helps us to understand the multi-plicity of approaches and heterogeneity in the field and thus serves as an overview for eclectic discussions around the concept of identity in and of organizations in its multi-ple guises.

A summary of the approaches with exemplary pieces from the literature is presented in Table 1. It is important to note that my categorization of the selected studies may

(15)

give an overly simplistic view of many of those studies. The division is based on my own interpretation of the main contribution of these studies.

Table 1 Different approaches to studying organization-related identities Approach to studying

identity Level of analysis Piece of literature

Concern with identity of

or-ganizations Organization Albert & Whetten (1985); Gioia et al. (2000a); Gioia &

Thomas (1996); Reger et al. (1994); Gustafson and Reger (1995); Pratt & Foreman (2000); Golden-Biddle & Rao (1997); Corley (2004); Corley & Gioia (2004)

Concern with identity of peo-ple within organizations (or social identity)

Group Ashforth & Mael (1989);

Al-vesson & Willmott (2002); Hogg & Terry (2000); Ash-forth & Kreiner (1999); Kär-reman & Alvesson (2001); Pratt & Rafaeli 1997 Concern with individual’s

identification with organiza-tions

Individual Dutton et al. (1994);

Brickson (2000); Fiol (2002); Pratt (1998); Elsbach & Kramer (1996)

What is common between these different approaches presented above is that they all deal with identities in and of organizations. In this study, I regard organizations as

inter-subjective structures of meaning that are produced, reproduced, and trans-formed through the ongoing communicative activities of its members (see Mumby 2001, 585). In this study, I thus regard organizations as phenomena that are con-structed in language use, not something that exist a priori our linguistic understanding.

Next, I will move on to discuss in more detail the concept of organizational identity, which is the focus of interest in this study.

2.1.1 WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY?

Organizational identity relates to the questions of “who are we?” and “who do we want to be?” as an organization, and “what kind of business are we in?” (Albert & Whetten 1985, 265). Since 1985, when Albert and Whetten defined organizational identity for the first time, most researchers have approached it in terms of 1) what is

(16)

taken by organization members to be central to the organization, 2) what makes the organization distinctive from other organizations, and 3) what is perceived by mem-bers to be an enduring or continuing feature linking the present organization with the past (see Albert & Whetten 1985, 265 for the definition).

What is characteristic for Albert’s and Whetten’s (1985) definition and for most of the studies conducted thereafter in the sphere of their influence is that organizational identity is seen more in terms of individual identity than as a distinctive phenomenon on its own (Gioia 1998). This means that organizational identity has been treated as a more or less psychological concept – since identity has traditionally been conceptual-ized from the point of view of an individual person – whereas a view of identity based more on organization theory could be a more relevant basis for conceptualizing col-lective, organization-level identities (Gioia et al. 2000b).

What then are the similarities and differences between individual and organizational identity? Concerning the similarities, identity answers the question of “who am I?” as an entity, on the level of both an individual and an organization. Secondly, the idea that identity is relational and comparative works both at the individual and the organ-izational levels. This means that individuals and organizations maintain their identity through interaction with other individuals or organizations by a process of interper-sonal or inter-organizational comparison over time. Thirdly, organizations as well as individuals engage in the practice of appearing similar to a chosen group, while at-tempting to distinguish themselves from the other members of that group. Fourthly, like individuals, organizations can be viewed as subsuming a multiplicity of identities, each of which is appropriate for a given audience or context. (Gioia 1998.)

Concerning the differences, it is the multiplicity of identities, which both connects and separates individual and organizational identities from one another. Organizations can plausibly present a complicated and multifaceted identity without appearing too frag-mented or schizophrenic, as an individual might (Gioia 1998). Recent research sug-gests that the centrality of identity is continuously negotiated in organization (Golden-Biddle & Rao 1997), and organization members switch between different identities depending on the context (Scott & Lane 2000a). Even though Albert and Whetten (1985) themselves recognized that there may be dual and multiple identities in

(17)

organi-zations, they did not discuss whether they could be in conflict with each other, or pe-ripheral in character.

The second conceptual difference between individual and organizational identities concerns the stability and endurance of identity. It is argued that although both indi-viduals and organizations display features of identity that are both stable and unstable, organizations can change at a much more rapid pace than individuals can reinvent themselves (Gioia 1998). Albert and Whetten (1985) discussed the possibility for or-ganizational identity to change, but they related such change to particular events over the organizational life-cycle. It has subsequently been argued that organizational iden-tity is more fluid than that, for example, because of its ongoing interrelationships with organizational image1 (see e.g. Gioia et al. 2000a).

Because of these two fundamental differences between individual and organizational identity, researchers have recently contested Albert’s and Whetten’s (1985) criteria of the centrality and temporal continuity of organizational identity and called for the theoretical development of organizational identity as a distinct phenomenon from in-dividual identity (Gioia et al. 2000b). In this study, my aim is to answer this call, as I intend to increase our understanding of how organizational identities are constructed in the linguistic processes of social actors. I argue that the view of organizational identity as a socially constructed concept increases our understanding of its multiplic-ity and fluidmultiplic-ity.

Before discussing the multiplicity and fluidity of organizational identity in more de-tail, it is useful to distinguish the concept of organizational identity from the related concepts and discuss the links between them. Hence, the relations between organiza-tional identity, organizaorganiza-tional culture, and organizaorganiza-tional image are discussed next.

2.1.2 RELATIONS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY, CULTURE AND IMAGE

Like identity, organizational culture has also been a popular topic in organizational analysis since the early 1980s (see e.g. Eisenberg & Riley 2001; Schultz & Hatch

1

(18)

1996; Hatch 1993; Martin 1992; Smircich & Calás 1987; Ouchi & Wilkins 1985; Schein 1985 and Smircich 1983). The concept of organizational culture is defined in various ways in the existing literature. For example, Schein (1985) defines organiza-tional culture as assumptions, values, and artifacts shared by organizaorganiza-tional members. This rather unitary view of organizational culture has been challenged by more frag-mented views (e.g. Martin 1992) and more dynamic models that have emerged from a interpretive perspective (e.g. Hatch 1993). Those taking a symbolic-interpretive view often follow Geertz’s (1973, 5) definition of culture, which is based on a notion of man being “an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun”. Geertz (1973) takes culture to be those webs of significance, and the analysis of culture to be interpretive science in search of meaning.

Organizational culture has been suggested to be a context “for taking action, making meaning, constructing images, and forming identities” (Hatch 1993, 686-687). Within this view, organizational identity is thus embedded in organizational culture, or, or-ganizational culture provides a context for oror-ganizational identity (Hatch & Schultz 1997; 2002). The difference between identity and culture lies in the notion that “cul-ture provides the system of rules that defines a social system”, whereas “identity pro-vides the contextual understanding of those rules that govern people’s understanding of themselves in relation to the larger social system” (Fiol et al. 1998, 57). Hence, cul-ture provides a larger context of meaning within which the identity work is done. Moreover, whereas culture is seen as relatively stable and hard to change, identity is regarded as more flexible and prone to change (Fiol et al. 1998).

Organizational image can be conceptualized in multiple ways, depending on the dis-cipline where it is studied. In some disdis-ciplines, for example, in public relations and marketing, the concepts of corporate identity, corporate image, and image manage-ment have been used to refer to the organization’s relationship with its constituents (see e.g. Abratt 1989). Those scholars study how the strategically planned and opera-tionally applied central idea of an organization is presented to its various constituents in order to achieve the organization’s strategic goals. These studies are mostly con-cerned with visual representations of an organization manifested through the design and management of organizational symbols and logos.

(19)

Within the organization theoretical literature, image is studied under labels such as construed external image (Dutton & Dukerich 1991; Dutton et al. 1994), projected image (Alvesson 1990), desired future image (Gioia & Chittipeddi 1991; Gioia & Thomas 1996), and reputation (Fombrun 1996). Although approached slightly differ-ently, all these labels refer to an understanding of an organization’s relationship with its constituents and connote perceptions that are both internal and external as well as projected and received (Gioia et al. 2000a).

The different forms of image as construed within the organization theoretical litera-ture are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Forms of image (adapted from Gioia et al. 2000a)

Label Definition in literature Examples in literature

Construed external image Organizational members’

perceptions of how outsiders perceive the organization

Dutton & Dukerich (1991) Dutton et al. (1994)

Projected image Image created by an

organi-zation to be communicated to constituents; might or might not represent ostensi-ble reality; singular image of the organization

Alvesson (1990)

Desired future image Visionary perception the

or-ganization would like external others and internal members to have of the organization sometime in the future

Gioia & Chittipeddi (1991) Gioia & Thomas (1996)

Reputation Relatively stable, long-term,

collective judgments by out-siders of an organization’s actions and achievements

Fombrun (1996)

Fombrun & Shanley (1990)

The breakdown of the boundaries between the internal and external aspects of the or-ganization has brought the concepts of identity, image, and culture closer together both in theory and in practice (Cheney & Christensen 2001). As organizations are ex-posed to their environment through increased publicity, networks, alliances, and other types of co-operation with various constituents, the boundaries between the internal and external aspects of organization are becoming fuzzier (ibid.). The actions and statements of top managers simultaneously affect both the internal and external

(20)

audi-ences of the organization (Hatch & Schultz 2002; 1997). Also, individuals may oc-cupy several roles in work organizations being simultaneously employees, customers, interest groups, and media watchers (Hatch & Schultz 1997), which makes the tradi-tional separation between the ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ of an organization more com-plicated than before.

For Hatch & Schultz (1997, 357), “culture, identity and image form three related parts of a system of meaning and sense-making that defines an organization to its various constituencies” (see Figure 1). In their model, organizational identity, which is em-bedded in organizational culture, provides material for the construction and communi-cation of organizational image. Organizational images are both projected outwards and fed back inwards the organization, thus constituting the (re-)construction of or-ganizational identity. The processes of oror-ganizational identity and oror-ganizational im-age construction are therefore reciprocal. Moreover, there are both internal and exter-nal influences of and on organizatioexter-nal identity. Interexter-nal influences consist both of top management vision and leadership, for example, in the form of corporate value state-ments, and organizational members’ work experiences, as they interpret and enact what the organization is. Again, organizational identity is communicated to external constituents through organizational spokespersons and direct contacts with customers and other stakeholders. The experiences of external groups about the organization have an influence on organizational identity formation, since organizational members are also outsiders of the organization, for example, as customers and through the me-dia, and because insiders’ perceptions of themselves are affected by how they believe outsiders perceive them. The efforts of top managers to manage organizational iden-tity are also influenced by external feedback.

(21)

Organizational Identity Organizational Image Top Management Vision and Leadership Experiences of External groups Members’ Work Experinces

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE EXTERNAL CONTEXT

Figure 1 A model of the relationships between organizational culture, identity and image (Hatch & Schultz 1997)

This study follows the view of Hatch & Schultz (1997) and views organizational identity as embedded in the cultural context of an organization and in reciprocal rela-tionship with organizational image.

(22)

2.2

M

ULTIPLICITY AND DYNAMICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY

In the previous chapter, the call for more dynamic and fragmented view of organiza-tional identity was stated. In this chapter, I will discuss in more detail how identity change and multiplicity have been approached in the previous literature, and what kind of challenges these conceptualizations still pose with respect to our understand-ing of organizational identities and their change.

2.2.1 IDENTITY MULTIPLICITY

Albert’s and Whetten’s (1985) criterion of the centrality of organizational identity has been challenged in the recent research, which has focused on multiple organizational identities (see e.g. Golden-Biddle & Rao 1997; Glynn 2000; Gioia et al. 2000a; Pratt & Rafaeli 1997; Pratt & Foreman 2000; Labianca et al. 2001). Despite the centrality criterion, even Albert and Whetten (1985) themselves recognized the possibility of multiple views of organization being held by organizational members that may either be shared by all individuals, or that may differ from one organizational part or group to another.

In a situation, when there are many conceptualizations of “who we are” as an zation, and when those views are held by all members of the organization, the organi-zation can be said to have a holographic identity or identities (Albert & Whetten 1985). In the existing research, ‘all members of the organization’ have typically re-ferred to the members of the management team, and researchers have explored, for example, the management of multiple organizational identities (Pratt & Foreman 2000) and the management of the association between multiple organizational identi-ties and strategic action (Sillince & Jarzabkowski 2004).

Organization members may also hold different views of the organization based on the differences, for example, in demographic, hierarchical, or professional categories they occupy, or between organizational units (Pratt & Foreman 2000). In these cases, the organization can be said to have ideographic multiplicity (Albert & Whetten 1985). For example, operative employees may perceive their organization and its identity differently from top and middle managers (Corley 2004). The notion of ideographic multiplicity has also made relevant the issue of power in organizations, as different

(23)

identity articulations may be in conflict with each other. For example, members of top management team may have conflicting views of what is central for their organization (see e.g. Golden-Biddle & Rao 1997; Glynn 2000).

Researchers have also extended the notion of multiplicity from an internal focus more towards the outside of the organization and argued that organizations may present themselves differently to different audiences and in different organizational contexts (see e.g. Scott & Lane 2000a; Brickson 2005). These studies have explored the or-ganization’s relationship with its various stakeholders and proposed that organiza-tional identity projections or identity orientation depend on with whom organizaorganiza-tional members are interacting and on what kind of effects are sought.

To summarize, recent studies have challenged the notion of organizational identity as unitary and central for all organizational members and suggested that a multiplicity of organizational identities exist within organizations. What, however, can be argued as problematic with these studies is that most of them assume that organizations are su-per-persons that have multiple identities (Coupland & Brown 2004; Czarniawska-Joerges 2004). This is a problem if we want to take seriously the recent call to ap-proach organizational identity on its own terms rather than as an extension of individ-ual identity (Gioia et al. 2000b). Furthermore, there are only a few studies, which take the notion of power seriously as their focus of study. The need to integrate power ex-plicitly into research on organizational identity was recently called for in the literature (see discussions in Whetten & Godfrey 1998). In this study, I assume that organiza-tional identities are not something that organizations have, but social constructs con-stituted in the linguistic processes that are mediated by power.

Table 3 sums up the contribution and critique of studies on multiple organizational identities from the viewpoint of this study.

(24)

Table 3 Contribution and critique of studies on multiple organizational identities Pieces of literature Contribution to this study Gap from the viewpoint

of this study

Studies that focus on multi-ple organizational identities, e.g. Pratt & Rafaeli 1997; Pratt & Foreman 2000; Labi-anca et al. 2001

Organizational identity is not unitary and central for all organizational members

Organizations are viewed as super-persons having multi-ple identities

The lack of the focus on is-sues of power

2.2.2 IDENTITY DYNAMICS

In order to challenge the traditional view of organizational identity as enduring (Al-bert & Whetten 1985), there are a number of studies that have increased our under-standing of the fluid nature of organizational identity (e.g. Gioia et al. 2000a; Hatch & Schultz 2002; Corley & Gioia 2004; Corley 2004; Dutton & Dukerich 1991; Glynn 2000; Gioia & Thomas 1996; Gioia & Chittipeddi 1991; Elsbach & Kramer 1996; Dutton et al. 1994; Scott & Lane 2000b; Reger et al. 1994; Whetten & Godfrey 1998). It is suggested that organizational identity is relatively prone to changes, firstly, be-cause of its close relationship with various forms of organizational image (Gioia et al. 2000a; Dutton & Dukerich 1991; Dutton et al. 1994) and secondly, due to discrepan-cies between different temporal identities and images (Corley 2004; Corley & Gioia 2004; Gioia et al. 2000a; Gioia et al. 2002; Reger et al. 1994; Gioia & Thomas 1996).

It has been noted in earlier research that construed external image – the way organiza-tional members believe that outsiders’ see them – provides a reference point for or-ganizational members to reflect their sense of self and to react to possible inconsisten-cies between identity and image (Gioia et al. 2000a). It is suggested that in the case of a perceived discrepancy, organization members can either try to alter the way they see themselves or attempt to change the way others perceive them (ibid.). In addition, identity may change proactively, without external triggers, when organizational mem-bers perceive an inconsistency between different temporal identities or images (Corley 2004). It is proposed that a discrepancy between the existing character of the organization (current identity) and future-oriented beliefs of the desirable character of the organization (ideal identity) causes an identity gap, which can provide motivation to change organizational identity (Reger et al. 1994). Furthermore, the projection of a desired future image, the way organizational members wish to be seen in the eyes of

(25)

its constituents, is a means of changing the currently held identity (Gioia & Thomas 1996).

Prior studies suggest many organizational-level benefits of the dynamic nature of identity. Initially, the fluidity of identity is seen as important in organizational adapta-tion to the environment (Dutton & Dukerich 1991; Gioia et al. 2000a). Because of the ongoing comparison between the construed external image and the sense of self, an organization is adaptive to the demands of its environment, which is continuously changing (Gioia et al. 2000a). For example, in their case study of a regional transpor-tation agency (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey), Dutton & Dukerich (1991) found that organizational members used the construed external image as a mir-ror, when they interpreted, reacted, and committed to organizational actions in dealing with an emotion evoking issue – homelessness in their facilities. By interpreting the signals in their environment, organizational members became aware of the scope of the issue and the threat it posed to the key elements of identity, both individual and organizational. This recognition of a deteriorating image triggered organizational members to act on the issue through taking initiative in solving the problem both lo-cally and regionally. (ibid.)

Furthermore, fluid identity plays an important role in triggering and facilitating organ-izational or strategic change (Reger et al. 1994; Gioia & Thomas 1996). This recogni-tion reflects the more general discussion of the role of managers in change initiatives as a sense maker and sense giver for the organization’s reality (see e.g. Gioia & Chit-tipeddi 1991). Top managers can trigger change in identity by creating a gap between the current and desired identity (Reger et al. 1994) and image (Gioia & Thomas 1996) and thus increase the acceptance of change within the organization. For example, in a study of issue interpretation by top management team members in higher education institutions in the United States, Gioia & Thomas (1996) found that a plausible and attractive future image that people could associate with and commit to helped to launch and implement a strategic change in academia.

The context of organizational change may influence the processes and outcomes of identity change (see e.g. Corley and Gioia 2004; Barney 1998). For example, the con-text of mergers, acquisitions, and diversifications may differ from that of spin-offs, equity carve-outs, and de-mergers with regard to identity change. As an example of a

(26)

study conducted in the off context, Corley and Gioia (2004) examined the spin-off of a Fortune 100 company’s organizational unit into an independent global tech-nology service provider and found that the process in which insiders became outsiders of the company caused ambiguity about identity as well as change overload and iden-tity tensions for organizational members. Ideniden-tity ambiguity occurred, when those la-bels that were used to define the organization before were not applicable to the com-pany anymore or changed their meaning for employees. For instance, there was in-consistency in the official labels used to describe the company, which caused ambigu-ity among employees. Moreover, as the company was dealing with both business-related changes linked to its turbulent competitive environment and cultural and struc-tural changes related to its breaking away from the parent organization, there was an increasing feeling of change overload among employees. In addition, identity tensions emerged, when there were multiple views about who the company was becoming. Tensions were related to the views about the customer groups and technology para-digms for the new organization, when some employees favored those related to the parent company’s core competencies, and others focused on more future-oriented pos-sibilities.

Prior research also suggests that the perceptions of organizational identity change dif-fer along hierarchical boundaries in organizations (Corley 2004). In his study of a global technology service provider after its spin-off from the parent company, Corley found that the employees in the lower level of the hierarchy tended to think about or-ganizational identity in terms of oror-ganizational culture and were sensitive to temporal identity inconsistencies, whereas those at the top of the hierarchy saw identity as re-lated to organizational strategy and were more sensitive to the discrepancies between identity and construed external image. Also, when identity change occurred, lower-level employees perceived the change through shifting identity meanings and chang-ing behaviors, whereas for top managers, identity change implementation meant more formal changes through new identity-related labels and images (ibid.).

Although previous studies have increased our understanding of organizational identity as a dynamic phenomenon in many ways, they pose a challenge with respect to organ-izational identity change. What is common for most literature on organorgan-izational iden-tity dynamics (e.g. Fiol 2002; Corley & Gioia 2004; Gioia & Thomas 1996; Reger et

(27)

al. 1994) is that they deal with inertia, triggering of change, and replacement, which are three processes of episodic change emphasizing stability as a natural state of or-ganization and instability as a condition of un-normality (Weick & Quinn 1999). The ontological understanding of the change is, then, based predominantly on stability and order rather than on change itself (Tsoukas & Chia 2002; Van de Ven & Poole 2005; Durand & Calori 2006).

Furthermore, previous literature has mostly adopted a psychological perspective to organizational identity change and tried to increase our understanding of identity transformation in general and the sources of commitment and resistance to change in particular, for example, with the help of self-concept theories (Reger et al. 1994), so-cial cognitive theory (Gustafson & Reger 1995), script development (Johnson et al. 2000), and self-categorization theory (Hogg & Terry 2000). The difficulty of such perspectives with respect to organizational identity change is that identity is, then, de-fined more or less in terms of individual identity, which changes through crisis peri-ods along individual life courses (see Erickson 1964), and therefore organizational identity is approached as a relatively sticky phenomenon by nature because of its con-nectedness to individual affections (Scott & Lane 2000b).

Also, there is a lack of attention given to issues of power in the existent dynamic or-ganizational identity models. Identity has been approached as a variable to be manipu-lated in order to better manage an organization (Gioia 1998), for example, through integration, aggregation, compartmentalization, or deletion (Pratt & Foreman 2000). Identity change has been seen as a process managed by a top management team, but attention has not been paid to the power effects that this process involves. As the management of organizational identity is crucially related to power in an organization, it is all the more important to study these processes from a more critical point of view (e.g. Alvesson & Deetz 1996). This involves the examination of managerial control in identity formation (e.g. Humphreys & Brown 2002) and in regulation of employees’ subjectivities (e.g. Alvesson & Willmott 2002; Oakes et al. 1998) as well as various strategies that employees may use in resisting managerial control (e.g. Fleming & Spicer 2003).

To summarize, linear unfreeze-change-freeze models with static beginning and end states continue to be dominant conceptualizations of identity change in the literature,

(28)

and yet, at the same time, the view of identity as a fluid and continuous process is seen to be an important avenue for future research (Ashforth 1998). If we want to ad-dress the challenge raised by Ashforth (1998) and many others, we have to consider alternative perspectives to the dominant conceptualizations of organizational identity change.

A novel conceptualization of change proposes that most change models are based on the ‘sameness principle’ and thus ignore the conceptualization of ‘other’ (Durand & Calori 2006). This means that most of the scholars studying organizational change “have assumed that organizations remain partially unchanged even when certain changes have undertaken” (ibid., 93), because they do not take into account the het-erogeneity and multiplicity, the views of the others, in organizations. Drawing from contemporary philosophy, Durand and Calori propose that when sameness and other-ness are in a dialectical relationship, “change is likely to be fluid and not to require brusque reorientations” (2006, 101). This view of change also recognizes the power asymmetries in the organization and emphasizes the need for ‘practical wisdom’ of the powerful agents in taking into consideration also ‘the others’ in the change initia-tives.

Another promising conceptualization from the viewpoint of this study is to see change not as an unnatural state of an organization, but as constitutive of organizational life (Tsoukas & Chia 2002). This view differs ontologically from the dominant change models in that it regards identity as a constantly ‘becoming’ process, not as a being entity. When change is seen as a natural part of organizational life, “organizational phenomena are not treated as entities, as accomplished events, but as enactments – unfolding processes involving actors making choices interactively, in inescapably lo-cal conditions, by drawing on broader rules and resources” (Tsoukas & Chia 2002, 577). This view of change recognizes the importance of language and discourse in the processes of change and regards organization as emerging from discursive practices of organizational members in specific contexts (Taylor & Van Every 2000).

This study follows the footsteps of those researchers, who conceptualize change not as episodic, but as an ongoing process (e.g. Tsoukas & Chia 2002). By adopting Mumby’s (2001) definition of organization, I define organizational identity as an in-ter-subjective structure of meaning about “who we are” that is produced,

(29)

repro-duced, and transformed through the ongoing communicative activities of organiza-tional members in a process, which is fundamentally mediated by power. The notion of ‘change’ is thus embedded into the definition of organizational identity, and change is seen as constitutive of organizational identity construction.

The definition presented above also recognizes multiple, contradictory, and conflict-ing representations about “who we are” and views them competconflict-ing with each other for priority in organization. This view of organizational identity change is close to a dia-lectical view of change (Van de Ven & Poole 1995; Durand & Calori 2006), which assumes that stability and change are explained by reference to the balance of power between oppositions.

Table 4 sums up the contribution and critique of the dynamic models of organizational identity from the viewpoint of this study.

Table 4 Contribution and critique of dynamic models of organizational identity Pieces of literature Contribution to this study Gap from the viewpoint of

this study

Studies that present a dy-namic view of organizational identity, e.g. Fiol (2002), Corley & Gioia (2004), Reger et al. (1994)

Organizational identity is

changeable over time The conceptualization of or-ganizational identity change is based on an episodic view of change

The lack of attention given to issues of power in organiza-tional identity change

Next, I will discuss in more detail the concepts of power, control, and ideology, which are central for this study.

(30)

2.3

P

OWER

,

CONTROL AND IDEOLOGY IN IDENTITY FORMATION

In the last chapter, I argued that even though the issues of multiplicity and change of organizational identity have received notable attention recently, the literature on or-ganizational identity has largely neglected the issues of power in organizations. The focus on beliefs and perceptions about “who we are” has left some important ques-tions unanswered. Do certain beliefs of organization have more weight than others? What kind of and whose interests do different articulations of “who we are” serve? Which members in an organization actually have ‘voice’ in defining “who we are” and “who we want to become”? In this chapter, I will discuss in more detail how power has been conceptualized in the field of organization studies, and what it adds to our understanding of organizational identities and their change.

Two early contributors to our understanding of organizational power are the classical writers Marx and Weber, who were both concerned with how power is exercised un-der conditions of division of labor in an organization (Mumby 2001). Later, contem-porary theorists have conceptualized power in terms of organizational decision-making, when power is defined as an ability to get others to do something that they would not otherwise do, or in situations of non-decision-making, when power is viewed as an ability to secure one’s own interests by controlling issues on the political agenda (ibid.). Lukes’s (1974) three-dimensional view of power extended the discus-sion of power from decidiscus-sion-making and non-decidiscus-sion-making to a third dimendiscus-sion, which suggests that power can also be exercised without any observable conflict in an organization by influencing, shaping, and determining the actual wants of others. No-table within this view of power is that those, who are rendered powerless, may not even be aware of their ‘real’ interests (ibid.). This conceptualization of power as something that is embedded in the social structures, or institutionalized, has later been put forward by Giddens (1984), who define power as agents’ ability to mobilize spe-cific rules and resources within a framework of spespe-cific structures.

Critical and poststructuralist perspectives offer important insights into the connection of power and identity formation in an organization, since power is not simply framed as a struggle over economic, political, or informational resources, but rather as a struggle over meaning (Clegg 1989). These insights are based on symbolic rather than

(31)

coercive views of power and are therefore similar to Lukes’s (1974) third dimension presented above. Relevant for this study are especially the works of those critical theorists, who have introduced the concepts of ideology and hegemony in the discus-sion of power, and Michel Foucault (1972), who has increased our understanding of organizations as sites of discursive power.

Ideologies can be seen as symbolically created systems of meaning, or as worldviews, through which the identities of social actors’ are constructed and situated within rela-tions of power (Mumby 2001). The ideologies can be regarded as the most effective means of domination when they become naturalized, fixed, and regarded as ‘common sense’, since then their power effects are not overtly recognizable and thus hard to sist. Closely related to the concept of ideology is that of hegemony, which can be re-garded as an attempt to integrate the worldviews of others with one’s own and win their consent (Fairclough 1992; Mumby 2001). Hegemony is about exercising power through constituting alliances and about integrating rather than dominating subordi-nate groups (Fairclough 1992). Various hegemonic struggles – economic, political, and ideological – take place in society between alliances that try to win support for their views (ibid.).

Empirical studies conducted within the critical lens have mostly concentrated on the domination part of power relations by studying managerial regulation of subjectivities and identities in organizations (e.g. Rosen 1985; Humphreys & Brown 2002; Alves-son & Wilmott 2002; Oakes et al. 1998). However, there has recently been increasing interest in organizational resistance, which may take various behavioral (e.g. Ezzamel et al. 2001) and rhetorical (e.g. Symon 2005) forms. Scott (1990) distinguishes be-tween ‘public transcripts’ and ‘hidden transcripts’, the latter referring to the low-profile forms of resistance, which occur behind public contexts. According to Scott (1990), the creative resistance of subordinate groups takes to a large extent place in discourse and behavior that occur ‘offstage’, or beyond the direct surveillance of powerful groups in an organization. Earlier research has suggested that employees may resist the managerial interventions targeted at their own or their organizations’ identities, for example, through nostalgia (Gabriel 1993; Brown & Humphreys 2006), irony (Fleming & Sewell 2002), cynicism (Fleming & Spicer 2003), scepticism

(32)

(Fleming & Sewell 2002), alternative interpretative repertoires (Knights & McCabe 2000), and silence (Scott 1990)2.

Foucault (1972) provides a rather different conceptualization of power compared with those presented so far. For him, power is not related to attempts by specific groups to pursue their interests by exercising power. Instead, he sees social actors as disciplined by social practices and discourses, which actually construct identities and subjectiv-ities for them. In their everyday discursive practices, social actors produce and repro-duce certain ‘truths’, which make them know themselves as subjects in particular ways. For example, organizational culture has achieved a status of ‘truth’ in the con-text of mergers and acquisitions, since the success of merger integration is often measured in terms of how successfully the cultures of merging organizations are inte-grated (Riad 2005). An important contribution of Foucault’s studies for the conceptu-alizations of power presented above is that those groups that are traditionally regarded as ‘powerful’ are also disciplined through the discourses that they themselves pro-duce, and that the acts of resistance of the ‘powerless’ reinforce and repropro-duce, not undermine, the truth effects of discourses.

Clegg (1989) presents a framework of ‘circuits of power’, which integrates the differ-ent views discussed so far. Like Giddens (1984), he emphasizes the interplay of both agency and structure in the operation of power in organizations. He also takes into explicit account the formation of identities and subjectivities in these processes. Ac-cording to Clegg (1989), there are three levels, which are connected to each other in the operation of power: the level of agency, social integration, and system integration. 1) The level of agency refers to episodic power relations of interacting social agents, 2) the level of social integration focuses on rules of practice that fix relations of mean-ing and membership constrainmean-ing and enablmean-ing the social agents and bemean-ing reproduced and transformed by them, and 3) the level of system integration understands the

2

Silence can also serve as a symbolic form of control and dominance in organizations. For example, Ward & Winstanley (2003) illustrated that homosexual workers were marginalized at the workplace by excluding those topics from the everyday conversations that concerned homosexuality, homosexual workmates’ leisure time activities, or family life. Through silence homosexual workers were, thus, con-structed with a negative or inferior identity vis-à-vis their heterosexual colleagues.

(33)

tures of domination and discipline, which are constituted by the rules of practice and empower and disempower the interaction of social agents (Clegg 1989, 214).

In the scarce literature of organizational identity in which the issue of power has been addressed explicitly, power has usually been conceptualized in a coercive way. Then, power has been seen as possessed by an individual or a group and manifested in a conflict over the views of “who we are” or “who we should be” as an organization. For example, in her study of conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra, Glynn (2000) argued that identity conflicts arise from the differences be-tween professional and occupational groups within an organization that often have contradictory interests and therefore claim differing attributes concerning the endur-ing, distinctive, and central characteristics of their organization. Another example is a study of conflict over organizational identity in a nonprofit organization (Golden-Biddle & Rao 1997), which illustrates that hybrid organizational identity may give potential for intra-role conflicts within a board of directors that threaten the mainte-nance of organizational identity.

In this study, I argue toward a more critical and discursive conceptualization of power in organizational identity formation. Then, power is not seen as possessed by certain groups imposing their views of “who we are” on others, but operating in the organiza-tional identity construction process itself (see e.g. Coupland & Brown 2004; Hum-phreys & Brown 2002). Organizational identities are, then, understood as achieve-ments of interacting agents, or ‘rhetors’, (Coupland & Brown 2004), who are engaged in ongoing identity-centered debates and ‘author’ identities in conversations. This view of power is, then, more pervasive than coercive views of power and recognizes that even the same actors can construct contradictory identities in their talk by draw-ing on discourses that have differdraw-ing ideological underpinndraw-ings.

To summarize, I define power in the organizational identity construction process as

the production and reproduction of, resistance to, or transformation of relatively fixed structures of meaning of “who we are” that are based on different ideological under-pinnings. This definition is adapted from Mumby’s (2001, 587) definition of power and is well suited to the discursive perspective of organizational identity that is taken in this study.

(34)

Table 5 sums up the contribution and critique of selected studies focusing on issues of power and politics in organizational identity construction.

Table 5 Selected studies focusing on issues of power in organizational identity formation

Pieces of literature Contribution to this study Gap from the viewpoint of this study

Studies that take into ac-count the issues of power in organizational identity forma-tion, e.g. Glynn (2000); Golden-Biddle & Rao (1997).

Organizational identity forma-tion is seen as a political process

Power is seen in coercive terms

(35)

2.4

D

ISCURSIVE PERSPECTIVE ON ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY CHANGE

In the previous chapters, I argued that present studies of multiple organizational iden-tities view organizations as super-persons having multiple ideniden-tities, which poses problems if we want to increase our understanding of organizational identity as a phe-nomenon distinct from individual identity. Also, I argued that the models of organiza-tional identity change are based on a view of stability and order as a ‘natural’ state of organizations, thus giving an overly simplistic view of dynamic organizational proc-esses. In addition, I proposed that a lack of attention is given to issues of power in present organizational identity literature.

How does a discursive view of organizational identity help us to tackle the above-mentioned problems? In order to understand the nature of the problems elaborated in this study and the potentiality of discursive view to fill in those gaps, ontological is-sues much be raised. Traditionally, most of the researchers have worked within an ob-jectivist lens, assuming that organizational identity is an observable and relatively solid social fact (Whetten & Godfrey 1998). The interest has been on static entities – such as the belief structures of organizational members – associated with measurable psychological or organizational outcomes. When viewed from a discursive perspec-tive, “the apparent solidity of social phenomena --- derives from the stabilizing effects

of generic discursive processes rather than from the presence of independently exist-ing concrete entities” (Chia 2000, 514, emphasis in original). The apparent stability of organizational identity is, then, discursively constructed and not an inherent feature of an objective and real phenomenon. Furthermore, the focus is rather on processes of identity construction than on the achieved constructs per se.

The view of organizational identity as a discursive construct thus differs ontologically from traditional, objectivist studies and brings new insights into the discussion of its change, multiplicity, and links to power. Firstly, if organizational identity is a product of language and social interaction, it can be seen as constantly changing depending on the audience, context, and purpose of the interaction (Burr 1995). Then, organiza-tional identity can be approached as an ongoing process (Gergen 1991) rather than as a being construct. Secondly, because identities are constructed in language use, th

References

Related documents

Chronic airflow obstruction due to chronic bronchitis and/or pulmonary emphysema.. Chronic Bronchitis

34: Zentilin P, Mastracci L, Dulbecco P, Gambaro C, Bilardi C, Ceppa P, Spaggiari P, Iiritano E, Mansi C, Vigneri S, Fiocca R, Savarino V. Carditis in patients with

• A decrease in blood pressure can reflect a decrease in cardiac output which can lead to a reduction in the amount of oxygen getting to the tissues. • An increase in heart rate

These data indi- cate that (1) DXA can be used to assess longitudinal changes in muscle mass in older people, (2) longitudinal studies of septuagenarians reveal a greater rate

TPC-DI is modeled using the data integration processes of a retail brokerage firm, fo- cusing on populating a decision support system with transformed data from a variety of

The objectives of establishing electronic healthcare system in the Republic of Serbia are the following: to mod- ernize healthcare system by applying the appropriate in-

Implement electronic invoicing Approval workflow for invoices Automate payment processing Implement invoice imaging ERP application upgrade Outsource portions of AP process 3% 10%

With more than 32 percent of survey respondents indicating that they send more than half of their purchase orders electronically to suppliers, having the ability for suppliers